Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-274476

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data, the failure to address prior litigation regarding state-by-state approaches, the flawed regulatory flexibility analysis for small entities, and the unassessed reliance interests, while citing specific locations in Michigan and requesting the withdrawal of the proposal.

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Still open to the agency

Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “DEIS Table 21 reports fire density figures that reinforce it”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “White Pine Trail, the Pere Marquette, the North Country Trail”
- “outfitters, guides, and tour operators who depend on roadless character”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Water Quality Quantity
- “286 municipal water intakes that sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “stake the 2001 rule was designed to protect”
Governance Policy Process
- “substituting local decision-making for a national standard has already been tested, and it failed”
- “agency changing course must actually assess the reliance its prior policy created”
- “regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant economic impact on small entities”

What it names

National Forests: Huron-Manistee National Forest
Roadless areas: White Pine

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The White Pine Trail, the Pere Marquette, the North Country Trail, the landscapes of the Huron-Manistee National Forest close to Lake Michigan: these are the places I use, photograph, and value, and they are what this comment is about. Michigan holds 6 inventoried roadless areas totaling 16,124 acres. I want those acres maintained for current and future generations, not opened to roads that serve timber interests rather than the public. The agency's own record undermines the case for rescission on nearly every point it raises, and I am asking the agency to answer each one. The proposal invokes wildfire management as a reason to allow roads into currently unroaded country. The agency's own prior findings say the opposite: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." That language comes from the agency, not from its critics. DEIS Table 21 reports fire density figures that reinforce it. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings and reconcile the rescission with that ignition data in the record before it. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency has tried that before. The previous attempt to substitute state-specific rulemaking for the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was challenged and found wanting by the courts. Without quoting the record's account of that episode, I will state the plain problem: substituting local decision-making for a national standard has already been tested, and it failed to protect nationally significant roadless values in exactly the incremental way the prior findings warned. I ask the agency to address how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that prior approach produced, and to explain on the record why the history of that litigation does not counsel against the same path. The Forest Service's regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant economic impact on small entities, including outfitters, guides, and tour operators who depend on roadless character in places like the Huron-Manistee. The DEIS itself names those same operators as affected, and the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That certification is reached by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than looking at the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The analysis concedes some firms may lose those receipts. A certification that averages harm across the whole country to make it disappear is not an honest assessment of who gets hurt. The agency must withdraw that certification and evaluate the small entities actually operating in the areas that would be opened. When I use the White Pine Trail, the Pere Marquette, the North Country Trail, when I photograph the landscapes of the Huron-Manistee, I do so with an expectation that unroaded land stays unroaded. That expectation was built on two decades of a rule the agency put in place and that the public relied upon. The proposal itself, at 91 FR 53830-31, solicits comments describing reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal, and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none of those interests. Under binding administrative law doctrine, an agency changing course must actually assess the reliance its prior policy created, not simply invite comments about it and set them aside. This comment is one such reliance interest. The agency must identify and weigh what it receives here, including what I have stated. I am looking to the Forest Service to prioritize preservation and maintenance, not to open these areas to roads that serve extraction over the public. The 286 municipal water intakes that sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas in the Eastern region, which includes Michigan, represent exactly the kind of stake the 2001 rule was designed to protect. Rescinding that rule without honestly answering any of these questions is not an adequate response to the record. The agency should withdraw the proposal. Sincerely, John Hensler Royal Oak, MI